August 12, 2017

"By noon, thousands are expected to gather in Emancipation Park, where barricades have been placed in proximity to the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee. The rally comes hours after a large group of torch-bearing white nationalists marched through the University of Virginia campus Friday night."

The city council has voted to take down the statue of General Lee (and to rename 2 parks named after Confederate generals). What, exactly, is the big deal about a march espousing a political point of view? Isn't this the sort of thing Americans should take in stride? Why not say some kind words about free speech, register your disagreement with the opinion the crowd is expressing, and move on?

I think the best answer to that last question is that people who disagree with the opinion see an opportunity to express their own opinion, to use the assembled crowd as a platform to express disagreement with the opinion expressed by that crowd. There's nothing really wrong with that, but why should onlookers like me get riled up about anything? It's just another normal day in America.

But that's not what CNN wants me to think. It's telling me that Charlottesville is a "quiet and progressive town." Nestled there are "residents on edge" (because noisy out-of-towners have arrived to speak on behalf of the monumentally silent statue). A "business owner" is quoted saying that townsfolk "have a lot of fears," and "are just anxious." He mentions "a blood bath... looting... mass arrests... police having to turn on citizens." I don't understand what that refers to. Counterprotests? Which "citizens" are the police going to have to turn on? Citizens of the quiet and progressive town of Charlottesville who are beset by outsiders exercising their free speech rights?

CNN quotes Larry Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics: "In my 47 years of association with @UVA, this was the most nauseating thing I've ever seen. We need an exorcism on the Lawn." Could somebody explain what he's so upset about? Why can't you look at a protest march you disagree with?

Is there something about torches? If so, after they tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee, they'd better tear down the Statue of Liberty.

353 comments:

Thursday this week marked the 150th anniversary of Robert E. Lee's surrender to Ulysses S. Grant on Palm Sunday, 1865. The surrender took place in the parlor of Wilmer McClean's house in the tiny hamlet of Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia, by the Appomattox River. It effectively ended the American Civil War, although the news of course took some while to percolate out to distant units.

Both commanders behaved with grace and professionalism at the surrender. I find it very moving to read about. To try to convey that to listeners, I am just going to give you a short reading from Shelby Foote's narrative of the war.

The following passage describes events immediately after the necessary documents had been signed and sealed. Dramatis personae here, aside from Lee and Grant, are Lt. Col. Charles Marshall, Lee's military secretary, Sgt. George Tucker, Lee's orderly, and Traveller, Lee's horse.

Shelby Foote:

It was close to 4 o'clock by now, and all that protocol required had been performed. After nearly three hours in the McLean parlor — half of one spent waiting and the rest in what could scarcely be called negotiation, since his adversary had freely given all he asked and more than he had hoped for: including immunity, down the years, from prosecution on any charge whatever in connection with the war — Lee was free to go. He rose, shook hands with Grant again, bowed to the others, and passed from the room, followed by Marshall. Out on the porch, several blue-clad officers came to attention and saluted as he emerged. He put on his hat to return their salute, then crossed to the head of the steps leading down to the yard. There he drew on his gauntlets, distractedly striking the fist of one hand three times into the palm of the other as he looked out across the valley to where the men of his army were waiting to learn that they had been surrendered. "Orderly! Orderly!" he called hoarsely, not seeing Tucker close by with Traveller, whose bit had been slipped to let him graze. "Here, General, here," Tucker replied, and Lee came down the steps to stand by the horse's head while he was being bridled. A cavalry major, watching from the porch, noted that "as the orderly was buckling the throat latch, the general reached up and drew the forelock out from under the brow band, parted and smoothed it, and then gently patted the gray charger's forehead in an absent-minded way, as one who loves horses, but whose thoughts are far away, might unwittingly do." Mounted, Lee waited for Marshall and Tucker, then started at a walk across the yard. Grant had come out of the house and down the steps by then, also on his way to the gate where his own horse was tethered. Stopping, he removed his hat in salute, as did the staff men with him. Lee raised his own hat briefly in return, and passed out through the gate and up the road. Presently, northward beyond the dwindled, tree-lined Appomattox, listeners on the porch heard cheers, and then a poignant silence.

Interestingly, Professor, the wife and I were talking about this just before you posted. White nationalists -- if that's indeed what they are, given that CNN uses the adjective "white" as a dog whistle to mean that left-thinking people need to hate them unthinkingly* -- have an absolute right "peaceably to assemble." In this case it seems clear that any violence will come from the counter-protesters and from lefty students egged on by President Sullivan and her faculty.

"...The Lost Cause became an integral part of national reconciliation by dint of sheer sentimentalism, by political argument, and by recurrent celebrations and rituals. For most white Southerners, the Lost Cause evolved into a language of vindication and renewal, as well as an array of practices and public monuments through which they could solidify both their Southern pride and their Americanness. In the 1890s, Confederate memories no longer dwelled as much on mourning or explaining defeat; they offered a set of conservative traditions by which the entire country could gird itself against racial, political, and industrial disorder. And by the sheer virtue of losing heroically the Confederate soldier provided a model of masculine devotion and courage in an age of gender anxieties and ruthless material striving.[21]

"...The most powerful images and symbols of the Lost Cause were Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, and Pickett's Charge. David Ulbrich wrote, "Already revered during the war, Robert E. Lee acquired a divine mystique within Southern culture after it. Remembered as a leader whose soldiers would loyally follow him into every fight no matter how desperate, Lee emerged from the conflict to become an icon of the Lost Cause and the ideal of the antebellum Southern gentleman, an honorable and pious man who selflessly served Virginia and the Confederacy...."

If they really cared about preserving the peace, they wouldn't be cranking people up about how horrible the rally is.

I can remember at least one KKK rally in Madison in the time I've been here. The city handled it well and everything was peaceful, and counter protesters were able to assemble and get their speech in too. Principles of free speech were discussed, understood, and respected.

I thought "1984" was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

All those "violent Trump rallies" in 2016 were violent because the left arranged it that way.

In leftist ruled cities like San Jose, CA, the police rearranged barriers to force rally attendee to run a gauntlet of protestor to get back to their cars. The parking structure was next door to the rally hall but they had to walk all the way around the block through screaming protestors.

It will be interesting to see if something similar happens there. I have already read that renting places to stay has been difficult.

I would imagine that now matter how many people of color there are at this rally it will be all white nationalists.

Like the tea party was. Another hateful bunch that left the grounds cleaner after massive rallies than it was when they got there. So devoid of any minorities who were photogenic enough for the c media.

My forefathers, or anyway great fore-uncles, fought against Robert E. Lee. From what I've read, Lee was an honorable man. It was a bad cause but he acted according to the dictates of his conscience and, after the war, he did what he could to advance the cause of peace. He's not the worst man to ever be celebrated with a public monument. The people who want to tear down his statue should consider that this act is just as provocative as a torchlit demonstration.....,,Recently, there's been a move to portray Confederates as monolithically evil, the Nazis of their day, That's just not true.

The delicate bit here is the possibility that this is a start of an overt white-tribal faction realizing its own existence as a mass movement.

Thats what these marches do - it shows the sympathetic but uncommitted that they are not alone, in fact that there are masses of them, and moreso it gives a convenient way to join by participating, to invest something in it.

That is very scary to the other side, which has traditionally had most of this action. Black and Latino mass movements have organized countless marches and demonstrations to organize themselves as ethnic political interests.

The mass manifestations of the right previously have been moral and political, anti-abortion and Tea Party, non ethnic, even though there is justice in the view that some of this may well have included a strong white-tribal element.

But there is enormous scope for an overt white-ethnic movement. The logic is there, there really is a broad area of group rights to assert, and there is a cultural space to protect, such as those Confederate monuments, but vastly more besides. They have turf to defend.

The left does not understand the first thing about keeping peace among ethnic factions, because they are arrogant. The first rule is that factions should be secure in their turf. Invade someones turf and its trouble.

""Already revered during the war, Robert E. Lee acquired a divine mystique within Southern culture after it. "

Sherman was very worried about the possibility of a guerrilla war following the Union victory. He and Joe Johnston were both quite concerned and Sherman tried to negotiate terms based on those Lincoln had expressed the week before. However, Lincoln had been assassinated and a vengeful Stanton not only countermanded his orders but accused Sherman of insubordination for even meeting with the Confederates.

Lee and his demeanor had a lot to do with the end of hostilities, plus Grant's magnanimity.

This destruction of history by the left reminds me of the Taliban and ISIS destruction of history,

[class] diversity, and, generally, Pro-Choice policies, are an established cause of the "social greenhouse" effect. Pro-Choice is a first-order forcing of catastrophic anthropogenic social warming (CASW) and global climate change (CAGCC) that are historically the cause of opening mass abortion fields and refugee crises (CAIR).

My forefathers, or anyway great fore-uncles, fought against Robert E. Lee. From what I've read, Lee was an honorable man. It was a bad cause but he acted according to the dictates of his conscience and, after the war, he did what he could to advance the cause of peace. He's not the worst man to ever be celebrated with a public monument. The people who want to tear down his statue should consider that this act is just as provocative as a torchlit demonstration.....,,Recently, there's been a move to portray Confederates as monolithically evil, the Nazis of their day, That's just not true.

Exactly so, William! History is being swept away and replaced by Progspeak. This is so like what happened in post-revolutionary Russia and in the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

I hope people will hang onto their books. There was an instance where I was forced to dispute a historian about the wording of a passage quoting John Adams. He was using digital archives and I happened to have a hard copy of an old book. He investigated and reluctantly concluded his source was wrong.

Like @William I have anti-Confederacy ancestry -- my great-grandfather was a leading abolitionist. I have no sympathy for the "lost cause". I believe that the honor that men like Lee earned for the South on the field of battle was squandered by the Southerners who imposed Jim Crow after the war, and that the honor that the Union's soldiers earned was likewise squandered by the Northern politicians who screwed up the reconstruction of the South and by those Northern politicians who tolerated Jim Crow.

But I now live in the South. By and large, the South has set aside the bigotry and prejudice that characterized the Jim Crow era -- no, Southerns aren't perfect, but I can say as a Yankee born and bred neither are Yankees. I see no reason to remove a statue of Lee from a public park. I see no reason for outsiders to march with (Tiki) torches to protest the removal of the statue. Both sides demonstrate intolerance. Both sides should be ashamed.

Once again we see a news organization trotting out the Southern Poverty Law Center as the defining arbiter of what a "hate group" might be. Without any real basis, and with the SPLC's own record of dubious pronouncements on the subject.

The left is determined to get America to a point where whites are not the majority race. They should be careful what they wish for - it seems, at a glance, there are few successful and prosperous democracies that are not majority white except a few Asian nations and maybe a couple nations in S. America. Does that prove cause and effect? Perhaps.

White males in America live in a system where their tax dollars are routinely used against them in Opportunity and Status.

Gigantic firms such as Google reinforce these efforts.

While this does not make the white male a slave, it is analogous to slavery in the assigning of a group to a lower status and and the taking of their labor in ways that are detrimental to them.

From Wiki:

"In 1859, Brown led a raid on the federal armory at Harpers Ferry to start a liberation movement among the slaves there. During the raid, he seized the armory; seven people were killed, and ten or more were injured. He intended to arm slaves with weapons from the arsenal, but the attack failed. Within 36 hours, Brown's men had fled or been killed or captured by local pro-slavery farmers, militiamen, and U.S. Marines led by Robert E. Lee. He was tried for treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, the murder of five men, and inciting a slave insurrection. He was found guilty on all counts and was hanged. Brown's raid captured the nation's attention, as Southerners feared it was just the first of many Northern plots to cause a slave rebellion that might endanger their lives, while Republicans dismissed the notion and claimed they would not interfere with slavery in the South."

Once again we see a news organization trotting out the Southern Poverty Law Center as the defining arbiter of what a "hate group" might be. Without any real basis, and with the SPLC's own record of dubious pronouncements on the subject.

What usually happens in these things is some alt-right people show up to protest something, and then 10x as many leftists show up to attack them and counter-protest.

Afterwards, the Press will report any violent Leftist attack on the alt-right as 'violence breaks out' or they'll make it look both sides were attacking each other.

As for Sabado, I used to think he was a objective Political scientist, but he's expressed too many left-wing opinions and gotten too many forecasts wrong (almost always because he'd been overestimating Democrat support) to give him much credence.

Robert E. Lee is a complicated historical figure. Really, his life turned out tragic, though he was responsible for it. He wasn't pro-slavery, but he was very pro-states rights, or rather loyal to a particular state over the whole of the nation.

He resigned his commission in the US Army, leaving behind much of what made him who he was over his life. That was unfortunate, but understandable not wanting to fight against one's own neighbors.

In becoming a general for the CSA, however, he became a traitor to the USA, fighting against his brothers and colleagues who had fought alongside him for so long. But it was a different era, with the Revolutionary War providing a model for separation. Indeed, Lee and Washington had a lot in common, a crazy amount, but Washington was surrounded by wise and thoughtful leaders (for the most part). Lee would have almost certainly been a better US President than Grant, but that's how history is sometimes.

Lee was seduced into a bad cause, threw himself wholly into it, and likely caused the Civil War to last longer and be more devastating because of it.

He was an honorable guy who let himself be used for dishonorable purposes. He would almost certainly abhor all that he's used as a symbol for today. But, the key is that that he let himself be used then, and so put himself--his honor, his reputation--in the service of evil. That he was honorable in his defeat and his post-war life is certainly true, but it never did erase how he was used and how he continues to be used for causes that went alongside secession.

I strongly suspect Lee himself would support removing statues and honors that keep his name applied to such causes.

His post-war work as a college president, however, argues strongly for keeping his name as part of Washington and Lee University. That's an honor that reflects him as a person, not packaged with all the other unfortunate causes.

The counter protestors are being attacked by the Alt right white nationalists. They're throwing bottles at police too Even clergy were attacked. Let's not hear about leftists violence anymore after this.

Lee's allegiance to Virginia is a little odd, since when he grew up in Alexandria, it was part of the District of Columbia, to say nothing of 3 decades in the US Army. But both his parents' families and his wife's were FFVs (First Families of Virginia, for you yankees).

"there are few successful and prosperous democracies that are not majority white except a few Asian nations "

I would recommend a close look at the "Asian nations" that are successful democracies. Japan has been run by a corrupt pseudo-democracy since 1950. Singapore is the most successful but it is an authoritarian state.

"The counter protestors are being attacked by the Alt right white nationalists."

Not really ominous. The moderate right has been warning for years that this would happen. The left created a situation where violent protesting is not punished. Of course eventually the other side will finally strike first.

Granted, should I manage to conquer San Francisco and be appointed Viceroy (with an appropriate title, I think Count would be nice, Count of San Francisco and Viceroy of Alta California has a ring to it), it may well be necessary to compel the inevitable detainees and the non-Penninsular (Spanish Penninsular, not the SF Penninsula) public into forced labor for necessary public works.

"Sounds like we both lurk on /pol/, they mentioned "cheesy tiki torches.""

I don't know that website. I feel I thought of the adjective myself, but it's possible that I saw it somewhere. Let me check.

No. The only website I went to that related to its being a tiki torch was The Daily Progress. http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/unite-the-right-torch-rally-ends-in-violence-at-the/article_32a1a082-7f0a-11e7-9f72-f3433c42fb49.html

I went there looking for reports of violence and found: "At the feet of a statue of Thomas Jefferson, fights began breaking out and some wielding tiki torches swung them at people. At least one person was arrested, and several people were treated at the scene for minor injuries."

"Sounds like we both lurk on /pol/, they mentioned "cheesy tiki torches.""

I don't know that website. I feel I thought of the adjective myself, but it's possible that I saw it somewhere.

No. The only website I went to that related to it's being a tiki torch was The Daily Progress. I went there looking for reports of violence and found: "At the feet of a statue of Thomas Jefferson, fights began breaking out and some wielding tiki torches swung them at people. At least one person was arrested, and several people were treated at the scene for minor injuries."

"Late Friday night, several hundred torch-bearing men and women marched on the main quadrangle of the University of Virginia's grounds, shouting, "You will not replace us," and "Jew will not replace us." They walked around the Rotunda, the university's signature building, and to a statue of Thomas Jefferson, where a group of counterprotesters were gathered, and a brawl ensued."

buwaya said...We weren't any more mean to the Indios than you lot were.

That's not true. Normal people just killed them.

The crazy Catholic priests tortured them to save their souls, e.g.

[Junípero] Serra had a singular purpose in mind, to save Native American souls. He believed that the death of an unconverted heathen was tragic, while the death of a baptized convert was a cause for joy. - He wrote, "That spiritual fathers should punish their sons, the Indians, with blows appears to be as old as the conquest of the Americas; so general in fact that the saints do not seem to be any exception to the rule." Punishment made clear to the natives "that we, every one of us, came here for the single purpose of doing them good and their eternal salvation."

Some people forget that the Civil War was a fight of "brother against brother." And that, technically speaking, the Confederate states never really left the Union -- the men across the field were their own countrymen. These people also forget -- or reject -- the President's call for malice toward none and charity for all. They want to keep the fight on forever, waging perpetual war.

If a statue were to be put up about a figure from those times, instead of someone divisive, it should be a person who sought such reunification, who sought to reconcile opposing sides and come together in friendship and brotherhood. And who would that person be? That same Robert E. Lee.

Dueling. It is time to bring it back.If people are going to start beating each other out of their political rage, its better to channel and organize it. It may even be healthier, statistically, even counting the casualties among the participants. The catharsis, stress reduction and reduction in online aggression will save lives and preserve health among a vast population.

Maybe they just need to fight each other in a controlled setting. When I was in Mexico, I used to see on occasion groups of young men/boys, might've been scouts, organized into two teams (in a public park) and they would fight each other, but it was orchestrated or choreographed somehow. I forgot to ask about it while I was there, but it was interesting.

"...there a group of counterprotesters were gathered, and a brawl ensued."

That means the Left-wingers attacked the Alt-right.

Reading the NYT, is like reading Pravda in the USSR. You need to notice what they don't say.

For example, if the liberal MSM write about a criminal and never show his picture or talk about his race, you can sure he's NOT white. And that's doubly true if the victim is a PoC.

If they talk about a Left vs. Right "Brawl" in unclear, passive language, you can be sure the Left attacked the Right. Because if it was the other way round, the sentence would make it perfectly clear that the Right attacked the poor Left.

Robert E. Lee is a complicated historical figure. Really, his life turned out tragic, though he was responsible for it. He wasn't pro-slavery, but he was very pro-states rights, or rather loyal to a particular state over the whole of the nation

Imagine that you are a loyal American, one who loves the Union and the principles of freedom that it stands for, and disagree to a large extent with what your neighbors are saying. Then imagine the government of that same nation sending its own Army into your community, sending armed troops to wage war in your state against your neighbors.

The notion of a nation waging war against its own citizens might cause you a lot of personal internal grief. Do you join with the Army to fight and kill your own neighbors? This isn't like when you took down a rabid terrorist, like John Brown -- these are your friends who are to be attacked. Do you stand by and do nothing, washing your hands of the whole affair? Or, your conscience not allowing you to do either of these things, do you resist the government waging war against its own citizens? Do you defend your neighbors, your friends, your state?

The question of Robert E. Lee is much, much more complicated than a simple good or bad determination.

Both commanders behaved with grace and professionalism at the surrender. I find it very moving to read about.

One would think most Americans would find these accounts very moving. This used to be common to Americans, including Americans who belonged to the side of my family that has no blood connection to Civil War and ante-bellum America. Becoming Americans, they had let themselves be absorbed into the American historical narrative; it became their own. (None of this, "why should I care about a bunch of old WASPs, they're not my people" crap.)

One notes that Derbyshire is also one of those people - he is an immigrant himself, that history is not his forebears' history, but now it is his. As it should be.

If Mr. Larry Sabato has had "47 years of association with @UVA", he is surely old enough to remember a time when Robert E. Lee wasn't an avatar of Hitler but a man respected by Americans from both sides and no side. (As well as foreigners: "I have met two men whom I prized as being above all the world I have ever known, and the greatest of the two was General Lee." (General Sir Garnet Wolseley))

I'm getting lots of information from my Twitter feed. (Sorry, no link: it uses my real name.) I follow a lot of professors, quite a few from UVa. Some things that most of you don't seem to know:

1. Some (most?) of the demonstrators are in fact Nazis: lots of large Naziish symbols in black and red, at least one T-shirt with a Hitler quotation on the back, and some of the polo shirts have literal swastikas on them, though very small, like the alligator on an alligator shirt.

2. They have apparently been planning this for months, and have come from all over the U.S. Reportedly, a lot of white nationalist groups didn't come, because they realized this was becoming 'Nazified'.

3. One tweeter insists that each of the 200 marchers has another 1,000 behind him! No one on my feed seems to be smart enough to figure out that 200,000 is still a negligible proportion of the population of the U.S. Most of the lefties (=most of the professors) seem to think this is all Trump's fault, that these people are typical Trump supporters, and that the White House is literally full of people just like them. Some of the marchers are shouting positive things about Trump (thanks, assholes!) but even if they represent 200,000 Americans, that's less than 1/3 of 1% of Trump voters.

4. Tweeters keep insisting that the Nazis are attacking the much-more-numerous counter-protestors, but then they tweet a picture of a guy who got tear-gassed - he's taken his shirt off to reveal massive muscles and large swastika. Also, he's from Charlotte, NC, which is a 5-hour drive from Charlottesville.

5. At least one reporter said he tried to get a picture of a tear-gassed counter-protester and the BLM threatened to kill him.

6. There are reports of bottled urine being thrown at reporters by Nazis, and of "multi-colored" liquids being thrown at Nazis by counter-protestors.

The problem with the NYT and the rest of the MSM is that if it makes much of the Nazi-ness of anyone on the right, these days, it simply serves to increase the popularity of Nazis.

Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb, etc.

The message-masters there may need to rethink this, as the already disaffected generation of white American youth, todays teens, may well become real Nazis, such is the latent hatred the MSM has inculcated in them through its endless acid and bile. They know very well they are hated.

Sorry, #4 should have said "a large [=6"] swastika tattooed on his massive right biceps".

7. Lots of stupid comments on Twitter asking how Nazis could possibly be allowed to carry torches on campus. No one seems to be aware that there is no political party banned in the U.S. and it's perfectly legal to (e.g.) advocate a Pol-Pot-style policy of killing everyone with a high-school diploma and everyone who wears glasses.

8. Twitterers are complaining that one of the Nazi leaders drew a gun in the Walmart parking lot and wasn't arrested! Absolutely no consciousness of the fact that it's perfectly legal to carry a gun in Virginia and to draw it if (e.g.) someone threatens or assaults you.

9. Lately there are reports that the rally has been legally cancelled, a state of emergency declared, and either the National Guard or the State Police called in to shut it down.

I've worked in the History field for many years, and have interacted with the general public for most of them. There is no longer a base of general knowledge or central agreed upon facts. Mockturtle is correct, one must have bound printed materials to counteract wikipedia and the miscellany of obscure websites. Between work and home I have access to thousands of books and journal articles, dating from the mid 1600s, and even then my analysis is often ignored or abjured because it 'doesn't seem right'. I can have three first person recollections of an event all agreeing upon a point, doesn't matter. The past now must conform to the present, and it's your hide if you disagree.

Matthew Sablan: Not really ominous. The moderate right has been warning for years that this would happen. The left created a situation where violent protesting is not punished. Of course eventually the other side will finally strike first.

It's the "moderate right" that should have been out all these years pushing back against the ideological vandals' mania for historical erasure. Instead, they've gone along with it all, every jot and tittle. So who's fault is it, really, that media-anointed clowns like Richard Spencer are the face of resistance to the vandals?

"Imagine that you are a loyal American, one who loves the Union and the principles of freedom that it stands for, and disagree to a large extent with what your neighbors are saying."

I live in California. I don't have to imagine.

Lee made understandable, very human, choices. That's why his life is ultimately tragic. His fought for Virginia. The South as a whole used him to bolster their cause. That's yet another troubling part, as he was a loyal Virginian in a time that Virginia got co-opted by an alternative confederation.

I'm a loyal Californian, as my family has been here for over a century. But, I'm not at all convinced by the secession rhetoric used around here, that claims to speak for Californians. There are people who speak for a community who don't themselves speak in the best interests of the community. Lee was convinced by those people in his time, taking advantage of some of his best motives for the sake of their base goals.

But he made the choices he did, and so became the symbol he has become. Which is now more about good and bad, even if that's not fitting for his life. He picked a side.

Drago (11:06am):It's the anti-Nazis who are claiming 1,000 pro-Nazis for every Nazi who showed up.

10. Earlier there were numerous complaints that the Nazis were shouting horrible racist things like "All lives matter" and even "White lives matter", with absolutely no awareness that the latter is objectively no more racists than "Black lives matter" and the former considerably less so.

11. A couple of months ago, there was another protest at the Lee statue in Charlottesville, though those guys did not go on the UVa campus or carry torches. They were KKK. I haven't seen any KKK hoods at this one, but that hasn't stopped the Twitterati from calling these guys KKK when they're actually Nazis. Granted, there is probably some overlap in membership.

12. At the previous protest, a couple of dozen people were arrested. The journalists were quite vague about which side they were on, but reading between the lines it certainly looked like the violence was all coming from the anti-KKK side. It's possible that today's Nazis are starting some - maybe even most - of the violence, but I doubt it will be easy to find out.

"However, he cannot be reasonable in dealing with "White nationalists" because good liberals would shun him."

Sabato lost all credibility with me when he particpated in the lynching of candidate George Allen in the 2006 Senate race. That was the famous term "macaca" in describing a Webb worker who had been following him around videotaping all his appearances. It was a slip but the WaPo made it the campaign theme. Sabato contributed by alleging he remembered racist remarks made by Allen when they were both students at UVA.

13. Lots of gleeful reports that Charlottesville restaurants refused to serve the Nazis before the rally, with absolutely no awareness that that doesn't really square with the same Tweeters' previously-expressed "Bake the gay wedding cake or be sued out of business!" policy.

As a transplanted Virginian, living not too far from Arlington House, what I do not countenance is any association here with the vile Jefferson Davis, a non-Virginian who brought such misery and blood upon the people here.

Of course, it was the modern Democrats -- the pro-segregation, Jim Crow Democrats -- who put up the Davis statues and named streets after him.

You don't want more Nazis, do you?They might get around to setting things up like in "Handmaids Tale". But maybe thats what those progressives actually want. Human motives can be difficult to untangle.

Lee was convinced by those people in his time, taking advantage of some of his best motives for the sake of their base goals.

It's hard for us to understand how powerful states' loyalty was when 1860 rolled around. Lincoln offered Lee the Union command.

He was the most prestigious officer in the US Army. As a civil engineer he had stabilized the river front of St Louis.

He was the son of Revolution general Harry Lee. He married a great granddaughter of Martha Washington. Their home, which he inherited when his wife's father died, is part of Arlington National Cemetery.

His attitude to slavery is controversial although he described it as immoral. He was opposed to the Confederacy but accepted the command as a son of Virginia, once it joined.

It important to remember that almost the entire Civil War was fought in southern territory.

Angel-Dyne observes: It's the "moderate right" that should have been out all these years pushing back against the ideological vandals' mania for historical erasure. Instead, they've gone along with it all, every jot and tittle. So who's fault is it, really, that media-anointed clowns like Richard Spencer are the face of resistance to the vandals?

By the way, I have yet to see any reports of injuries resulting in hospitalization in Charlottesville, though the UVa hospital did reportedly cancel all elective surgery in anticipation. That's another big difference from BLM and 'Antifa' rallies.

Since 'Unknown' is repeating the latest Twitter talking point, that Trump hasn't commented yet, I have to ask: did Obama ever comment on the bloody, fiery riot at Berkeley? Bernie Sanders sure as Hell never told his followers to tone it down after a Bernie Bro shot Steve Scalise and four others.

I began reading this post, and these comments, in full agreement with Professor Althouse and most of you. Up above, I posted my derision of a news organization once again using the hyperpartisan Southern Poverty Law Center as if it were a source of some sort of academic authority. Which it surely isn't.

I saw the still photos of the torchlit march from last evening, and if I had to pick one side, I was prepared to pick the side of the (peaceful) pro-Lee demonstrators. I saw no signs; nothing to identify anyone in terms of what reasonable people might easily confirm as hate groups. I really got the impression that they were reasonable, thoughtful people demonstrating support for the historical nature of the Lee and Jackson statues and Lee Park.

But now I am seeing video and still photographs from today's demonstration(s). And I am seeing signs that explicitly identify with the Ku Klux Klan. And lots of neo-Nazi stuff; Wermacht-style helmets; those swastika-like cross symbols; signage declaring hatred for Jews.

I'm sure that Althouse would (rightly) maintain that even neo-Nazis have First Amendment rights and I wouldn't disagree. I'd condemn any act of violence or speech-suppression by the local liberals of Charlottesville.

But today's protests look to be as poor of a representation of "the Right", as the "Occupy," "Black Bloc," and #Resist groups have been a disgrace to the Left. I just wouldn't want to extend myself defending them.

I'm very interested to hear what Althouse says after seeing today's images. Certainly, she has no reason to change her substantive views on free speech. I wouldn't change my views either. Speech is speech. I don't get to decide which speech can be proffered by others. But whereas I earlier felt that media characterizations of today's demonstrations having been organized by "hate groups" were unfounded, now I have to rethink that.

Second, they may be leftists in the Democratic Socialist or South African sense. They may be [class] diversitists, believe in spontaneous human conception ("big bang"), or maintain a quasi-religious/moral belief in abortion rites (i.e. elective procedures).

It's probably too early to know if they are Antifa, Occupy, or Obamacare (i.e. millions without medical insurance paying prescriptive penalties, millions more that fall in the gap between expanded Medicaid and affordable medical insurance) fans.

That's Point Dume in LA County, the most popular beach filming location. I speared a ton of fish around those offshore rocks, but you can't anymore because Hollywood stars got a marine reserve declared. Their $10M homes are just up and to the left. A nice little nude beach is just around the corner.

Behind the shot is "Free" Zuma Beach, home of the gnarly fast hollow waves of "Drainpipes". Offshore swims the Man in the Gray Suit.

"Imagine that you are a loyal American, one who loves the Union and the principles of freedom that it stands for, and disagree to a large extent with what your neighbors are saying. Then imagine the government of that same nation sending its own Army into your community, sending armed troops to wage war in your state against your neighbors."

Well, that's some nice imagining, all right, but I don't think it has much to do with Robert E Lee. The American colonies left British rule as a Union of States, united in order to coordinate their struggle with the Crown. But they saw themselves as citizens of those States, to an extent that is difficult for a modern American to understand. The army was organized by State, and led by officers from that State.

Lee fought with great distinction in Mexico with the American invasion. It may not be too much to say that were it not for Robert E Lee, California would be Mexico's problem, not ours (It looks like there is a plan to redress that error). But when the puritan fanatics of Massachusetts took control of that union of States, created to further the interests of all the States, and prepared to use the Army he had proudly served to make war upon his own State, it did not take any soul-searching to decide where his allegiance lay.

@Ralph L., agreed, and after Sherman's march from Atlanta to Savannah he marched north through "impassable" swamps to and through South Carolina, and they burned everything in their path. The foot soldiers knew where the war had started.

Part of the Nazi signage and symbolism is pour epater les bohemienes. That it also manages to epater les bourgeois is another advantage.

Much of the left wing symbolism such as the Mao and Che images and etc. started out as just that, before becoming mere cultural markers.

But its difficult to shock people with symbols these days. The right has a large advantage because Nazi symbolism is still shocking. It is effective and potentially glamorous to disaffected youth, simply because it is shocking. The more people are shocked the better they like it.

This was a minority position during the skinhead fad, but US politics has added a powerful element of genuinely divergent interests here. The skinheads were marginal kids mainly. The new potential-Nazis are, in large part, not marginal, being driven to them through frustration with the weakness and futility of the Republican party.

Not sure where Stephen Wolfram is today on his theory of irreducible binary opposing forces, his scientific Zoroastrianism, with Wolfram playing an undying and inconclusive Zoro, but these university demons can come in handy in any New Science for keeping things in check out there on the Lawn, since if you have a Public Lawn, then that’s exactly where the kids will play.

President Lincoln went over to General Scott's house one evening to ask how the war was going. but was told the general was not at home. Lincoln decided to wait for him to return and was shown into the parlor. After a while General Scott did arrive, but ignored the president waiting for him and went up to bed. Lincoln eventually was told about this and that the general did not wish to be disturbed. He then went over to Seward's house, and the two of them agreed that General Scott had really gone too far this time and a new commanding genneral was called for. They decided on Colonel Robert E. Lee and sent a messenger to the Lee mansion to ask the colonel to come to Seward's house. However, it was ten o'clock at night by the time the messenger arrived at Arlington and he was told that Colonel Lee had decamped for Richmond to join the secession at nine o'clock.

Its amazing how effective use of traditional political symbols and methods was last year. The mass rally, that gets the people together so they can see each other (thats the point really), the hats, the slogans.

What with their anti-slavery obsessions and all, crazies like Robert Gould Shaw leading discontented sons of the South to fight against the peculiar institutions that made the South such a beacon of liberty.

Of course, blaming the Puritans of Massachusetts is about 200 years out of date by the time of the Civil War.

Interestingly, Mark Twain made quite insightful comments about the South of his time, in part laying the blame with Walter Scott's romanticizing of old chivalry, with wealthy southerners laying claim to that tradition and thus fighting for their privileges. The lionizing of Robert E. Lee fits that pattern.

It would be nice to actually see some links to web sites, twitter feeds, etc that both the Right & the Left used to organize this Kumbaya Session in Charlottesville. I'd actually like to know what groups are behind it, instead of having the sides classed as "white supremacists" & "counter protestors".

I've been on this forum a long time, & many of you know that one of my pet peeves is when anyone, especially the media, gets sloppy in declaring X group to be of Y ideology. ideological distinctions matter. Trotskyites are not Stalinists are not Maoists are not Frankfurt school are not Bernsteinian Social Democrats. There is only one "Fascism" & that's Italian from about 1920 to 1945. National Socialism is not Italian Fascism. Democrats are not Republicans. Democrats are not Stalinists & Republicans are not Fascists.

The press will pick an epithet and label a group with it over & over again, often ignoring other aspects of their ideology. For example, the Nation of Islam is often labeled "antisemitic", which it is. It's also black separatist & black supremacist, & it never gets called that in the MSM. The Nation is very upfront about both of these tenets, much more so than their antisemitism.

The first place to start with any ideology is what do these people say about themselves? So, who are these guys smacking heads in Charlottesville? What are they saying they are?

Ralph L - I have seen very recent video on FNC in the last hour, of some badass-looking black guys with bats and clubs, shadowing the (white) demonstrators and looking very threatening. Like they really wanted a fight.

And yeah, I have seen an awful lot of violence that seems to have been directed unilaterally at the (white) protesters.

The only side that I am choosing is the side that Althouse already favored; the right to free speech without violence.

But as somebody alluded to above; this is not going to "unite the right." I see it as a vast division of the right.

Bill Buckley spent a couple of decades driving the Klan and the Birchers out of conservatism.

Chuck:You need to (a) work on your research skills, and (b) read the previous comments. I said (#11 in my 11:18am comment) that the Klan had a rally in Charlottesville "a couple of months ago". Googling it, I find that it was on July 8th, so actually only a little over month ago. Your second link, with the Klan picture, is from the previous rally, not today's: it has the date right in the URL. I suspect your third link is from that rally also, since the pictures I'm seeing from today are all Nazis, not Klansmen.

"Bill Buckley spent a couple of decades driving the Klan and the Birchers out of conservatism."

I don't think there were ever any "Klan" members in conservatism of the Republican variety,. Maybe you mean the southern conservatives who were all Democrats.

He also drove out Joe Sobran and some people with views that were controversial but not "Birchers." I knew Birchers. The headquarters was in South Pasadena where I lived at the time and my neighbor was the only Bircher Congressman.

He was John Rousselot who walked with a severe limp and was a rather friendly guy. Until I looked upmhis Wiki entry, I dodn;t know he died in Mission Viejo where I moved from South Pasadena.

A friend in college told me he was thinking of joining. I suggested he not as they looked a bit radical to me and I thought they would tend to attract nuts.

I am more annoyed that Buckley's successors saw fit to drive away John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn.

The reaction to these fellows is over the top. This is excellent for them, because it will create sympathy.

The counter-protesters also do not present an appealing picture. The "priests" are the usual look of the leftist clergy. This is no church militant and disciplined, they seem diverse in just the wrong way, with lesbian priestesses and obvious tribal black clergy.

The counter protesters are flabby and unfit and odd (in every way) and not a bit intimidating.

Contrarily the Nazis look prepared, if necessarily heterogenous, and on the whole far more fit.

Missed in all this is the point of the manifestation. It is a fight over the allegiance of the white tribe. If the opposition insists on using people and symbols that most white Americans have learned to despise, such as Orrin Hatch, then they will lose.

Mark (12:43pm):I live in Staunton, literally next door to the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library. I've never seen or heard a demonstration there, or been tempted to arrange one, though he was (in my opinion) the worst President ever, one or two of the living ones possibly excepted as too-early-to-tell-for-sure. I've never been inside, though I do like to admire his 1919 Pierce Arrow convertible, which can be seen for free through a picture window (Bing it).

"He also drove out Joe Sobran and some people with views that were controversial but not "Birchers." I knew Birchers. The headquarters was in South Pasadena where I lived at the time and my neighbor was the only Bircher Congressman."

********

For years, the John Birch society was HQ'ed in Belmont, MA, a Boston suburb. South Pasadena must have been a branch office.

Dr. Weevil -Thank you. I am not even going to check on the provenance of the Klan photos. If you say that they were from July 8 and not today, I will happily stand corrected. Again, I thank you for noticing that and correcting the record.

My first and fourth links are stories and videos from today. And yes, they are neo-Nazis of some flavor with which I am not familiar. There are some symbols that are definitely not swastikas, but which are black and white crosses that are reminiscent of swastikas. It's quite deliberate, isn't it?

I find it hard to argue with CNN's use of "white nationalists" to describe the demonstrators (as opposed to the counter-demostrators).

Also; the white nationalists look to be totally outnumbered. The overwhelming power of numbers, and in fact the initiation of violence, looks to lie with the counter-protesters.

Reading CNN about the violence today, it is impossible to determine who the violent ones are. It is all written in the passive as usual. Bottles were thrown, people were maced. Who were the perpetrators?

I am more annoyed that Buckley's successors saw fit to drive away John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn.

I remember Derbyshire getting nixed at NRO, but what happened to Mark Steyn? Last I remember of him he was regrettably given the heave-ho at Mark Levin's CRTV. But that seemed more over a contract dispute then any sort of ideological purge.

And when the cultural revolutionaries start going after Washington and Jefferson in earnest we won't hear a peep out of these two Principled Conservative Gentlemen, until some Nazi-larpers show up in the frame to give them something to denounce that will please their progressive masters.

Karen complains: Reading CNN about the violence today, it is impossible to determine who the violent ones are. It is all written in the passive as usual. Bottles were thrown, people were maced. Who were the perpetrators?

That's easy to deduce. If the alt-right protesters were committing the violence CNN would not be vague so we know it had to be the counter-protesters.

While we're at it -- where are the demonstrations outside the Democratic National Committee, headquarters of an organization that to my knowledge has never apologized for being the Party of Slavery, Secession, and Segregation?

The group blocking the street was Antifa and other "Resist" types. There have been a number of curt cases that say people blocking a public street do not have the right of way. The car that rear ended the other that had been stopped by demonstrators might be a neo-Nazi or it might be s a guy on his way to work who got pissed.

The other attractive thing about the Nazis there is the not inconsiderable degree of personal courage they are showing.

And the more they are opposed, the more courageous they seem.

They are not doing this all simply for the benefit of the conventional media (they operate largely in the underground media), but the MSM is giving them just what they want, every sort of positive romantic connotation, as courageous underdogs, especially opposed by the most despised elements in American culture. It really doesnt help their opponents that the great and good condemn the Nazis, because the great and good are generally held to be worse.

Having watched the video, if the car driver who smacked into the car & caused the injuries says in court that he was surrounded by an illegally assembled (remember a state of emergency had been declared), angry mob & he feared for his life & needed to get out of there, do you think there's a jury in that part of Virginia who's going to disagree?

Unknown said...The counter protestors are being attacked by the Alt right white nationalists. They're throwing bottles at police too Even clergy were attacked. Let's not hear about leftists violence anymore after this.

So every time antifa burns a city I can say 'let's not hear about rightist violence anymore after this'? You realize how you stink of hypocrisy?

Out with it, Unknown. You think because you're a pissed off Lefty you get to ignore the laws & threaten people without any backlash?

Tell you what, Unknown, let's get a bunch of Klansmen & Nazis marching down a narrow street & put you & your family in a car that stuck on that street. If some of them start hitting your car, what are you going to do?

Ralph: Lee's allegiance to Virginia is a little odd, since when he grew up in Alexandria, it was part of the District of Columbia, to say nothing of 3 decades in the US Army.

I don't understand why you think Lee's service in the US Army would make his allegiance to Virgina "odd". (See Jupiter's comment @12:14)

And regardless of map lines, Alexandria, and Washington itself, for that matter, were very "Southern" in culture until quite recently. (Same for the rest of NoVa.) We used to tease my mother, a native Washingtonian, on this point all the time. Everything she told us about her upbringing screamed "Southerner!", despite her adamant and exasperated insistence that she was a Yankee and nothing else. (We would, for example, catch her fondly remembering movie-going back in her day, when it was the custom for theater-goers to all join together in a rousing round of "Dixie" before the film started. When we'd snicker "And nothing says Yankee like a rousing round of "Dixe", does it, mom?", she would claim they did that only because it was a lovely lively song that people just enjoyed singing.)

Unknown: "An car plows into a crowd of counter protestors. Now they're using ISIS tactics."

ISIS cuts the heads off of young children, burn people alive in cages, engages in mass sexual slavery of minors, enslaves women, throws gays off of roofs and stones them after burying them neck deep in sand, has 9 years olds with automatic weapons put bullets in the back of the heads of prisoners, executes by beheading hundreds at a time on beaches, etc.

So, yeah, exactly like ISIS. Exactly.

Except you don't complain about real ISIS tactics when committed by ISIS types. In fact, you call for increased immigration of these butchers.